President Bush seemed remarkably relaxed and jovial at his news conference, just concluded. Obviously he deserves credit as a consummate politician insofar as his public deportment is concerned.
Significantly, he gave several hints of his realization that a change would be necessary with respect to Iraq, and his willingness to work cooperatively with the Democrats.
When asked by a reporter how he could work effectively with Pelosi, given her public characterization of the president as a liar, Bush gave the standard bury-the-hatchet type of response, and avoided any negative comments regarding the new Speaker of the House.
He spent a good deal of time commending "his friend" Rumsfeld for a job well done, and somewhat less time on his nominee, Bob Gates.
Immediately following the press conference, a Republican commented that the first question Bob Gates would have to address, would be whether to increase the number of troops in Iraq.
A strange and disturbing statement given the president's prior comment that "the American people have spoken."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
But it sounds like it has turned out as I had hoped according to this article. I think it would be wonderful if everyone could now come together and work for our common cause ... peace without loss unless God sees fit to do justice where needed if needed.
Time will tell ... and I would like to take this first opportunity (I may do an article on it yet) to thank all of the Republicans that either stayed home in disgust or came out and voted their hearts to the degree that it has helped all of us begin (hopefully) a new direction.
Peace, j.
Don't get your hopes up
David, who made the Republican comment you referred to?
The press conference was a masterful piece of slipperiness and skidding around.
Bush is buoyant and happy he did get his torture bill and warrant less wiretapping bill passed. Rove must have recognized in July that the midterms would be lost, historical after all.
About Rumsfeld, ed, well This president says he says what he means and means what his says, unless, he changes his mind, or is caught saying the wrong thing.
Bush started this war, but will now blame Democrats for the loss. Bet on it.
Rosa,
Pelosi has publicly stated that impeachment is not in her planned agenda, but if evidence is found that Bush deliberately lied to the legislature to engage in this war, it is against the law to do so. Why would you be opposed to an impeachment?
I think the word "deliberately" has been tossed around way too liberally. And even Clinton stated during his term that Saddam's regime needed to be removed. Politics has a way of distorting truth.
I also believe an impeachment hearing would be a negative distraction of time and money, just as it was in Clintons term. Focus on issues is what we need, rather than focus on more division.
This seems to be a very divisive statement, made by you.
"Be assured, neither the Dems or the Reps have won, the Moderates won. And I don't believe it will take 6 months to a year for impeachment hearings to begin, according to Pelosi's agenda. She won't even give the new Congress a chance to
be bipartisan. "